Calendar

Hoyt, Seawell in new DPS Open Meetings Controversy

“I’ve been on the board for seven years, it has been clear knowledge that any time three board members convene to discuss district business it must be public. I’ve operated under that guideline pretty clearly for seven years.”— Bruce Hoyt, November 15, 2010.

After a November firestorm over the Denver School Board and the Colorado Open Meetings law, another contretemps erupted Friday, as three members of the board sought to interview potential independent financial advisors. The meeting, which was not noticed per Colorado law, was derailed when a reporter showed up at the St. Charles Capital office of Board Member Bruce Hoyt. Hoyt first demurred from the meeting, then the meeting itself was cancelled. Eventually, the meeting was rescheduled for Tuesday, in an open format.

In November, Denver Public Schools was in a tizzy over a media crisis caused by Board President Nate Easley, who sought to censure three board members for being in the audience of a meeting of the Colorado Lawyers Committee. Easley went so far as to go the Denver Post, a visit which generated an editorial, as critical of the board as it was sparse in its facts.

The meeting, was convened by Board Member Mary Seawell, who chairs a board sub-committee on finances. Seawell has sought an independent advisor for the school board after articles critical of the district’s financial dealing appeared in the New York Times, the Bond Buyer and the Cherry Creek News. Whether the school board will ever get truly independent finance advice is in question— the district faces an April deadline to replace shadowy Belgian bank Dexia as buyer of last resort for the district’s pension bonds which face a weekly auction. Independence, which would mean an advisor had not previously done business with the district. Secret meetings seem to suggest that some, including Hoyt, the board’s lone member with professional finance experience, are seeking to cover up either wrong-doing or serious mistakes, mistakes which according to the district’s own auditors resulted in a deal currently some $140 million under water.